Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Bedell v. Daugherty, 242 S.W.2d 572 (1951)

Citation
Bedell v. Daugherty, 242 S.W.2d 572 (1951)
Parent Document
Bedell v. Daugherty, 242 S.W.2d 572 (1951)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
1951-10-08

Full Text

620 chars
In Teare v. Sussman, 120 Colo. 488, 210 P. 2d 446, appellant’s second assignment wa.s that the misrepresentations to plaintiff were of future intention, not of past or existing facts. “As to the second objection, the representations alleged,” said the court, “were not merely as to future intentions, but were false statements as to existing facts. Where a present intention, even though as to future conduct, is predicated upon or evidenced by false statements as to existing facts, such statements, if relied on, constitute actionable fraud.” This is the rule in Missouri. Thieman v. Thieman, (Mo. Sup.) 218 SW 2d 580.